This article may take on a slight tone of provocation since integrity is typically described as a positive and desirable trait.

 

Especially in western societies, part of becoming a mature, integrated individual is having your personal values and ideals interacting harmoniously with the world based on these. I don’t intend to ridicule,  I rather almost envy those who seamlessly live by a well-defined, comprehensive value system. But this is only commendable if all the challenges and implications that come with having a value system are tackled rather than overlooked.

 

Implementing a consistent value system constantly demands digesting new impressions, interpretative challenges, and realities within oneself as well as in the outside world. If you know that the mission of a comprehensive value system involves forever seeking unprocessed, white spots in the map, you will sooner or later encounter problems, which I’ll delve into here.

 

Let’s consider a simple, everyday example: You see another person doing something you’ve consciously dodged for viewing it as detrimental to yourself, such as alcohol, laziness, drugs, unhealthy or religiously inappropriate diet or workaholism, complete drug abstinence, perfectionism – it can be anything.
How do you respond? If your existing value system only accounts for your own actions, an inevitable question arises: how do you deal with others doing something “bad”? Ignorance could be bliss, and you may take pride in an unconscious self-focused value system. Taking your values seriously, however, involves constantly repositioning yourself in response to new issues.

Certainly, other solutions may exist. It may well be that a value in the system states actions should only apply to oneself. Various facets could be expressed in “moral language”:

 

 

With my values, I need to start with myself, perhaps setting a good example, nurturing a strong community, and making a positive impact on the world. 

 

Everyone should be free to do as they wish. Everyone is responsible for themselves, and I have no right to prescribe actions for others. On provocation, one might even say, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it“.

 

Another solution might find one attempting to explain to the person why that action is harmful, as it is a duty to help others as oneself. 

 

A fourth solution might be questioning whether your initial judgment is indeed correct. The tricky thing here is evaluating right from wrong with the same values that initially deemed the action as “bad.” If you seek to change your judgment, you need to incorporate new value components. This fourth solution, thus, extends the value system.

 

Once you opt for the last solution, however, you encounter another issue: the arbitrariness and especially the lack of connectivity among various values within the system. Technically, all values should be interconvertible, much like in mathematical language. This would maintain the integrity and keep doubts at bay. But the basis of all this could still be questioned. If all values can’t be proven through logical chains, you need to question the basis of these values: are they arbitrary, influenced by whims and emotions, thus not upholding the moral standard of a value system?

This problem persists even when selecting one of the four varied solutions. Why do we choose one solution over another? Does an existing value lead to choosing the next, or are choices made due to emotional reasons still under the radar?

After recognizing these problems, you may be tempted to solve them with meta-values:

 

 

 

Yet, at every level, the question remains as to why one adopts specific value positions and not others.

In my view, the only solution extends beyond the spectrum of a value system, and is the absence of one. One must admit that this system is nothing other than a set of emotionally driven instructions, allowing the superego to soothe the ego.

Value systems with an appetite for white spots on the mental map are inherently judgmental; this may even blur one’s perception of reality, causing one to overlook and miss out on various nuances and often leading to an inclination towards extremes.

The craving for a value system on a socio-political level is equally prevalent – the various ideological “-isms” tell it all. These are theories that place themselves above all, requiring everyone to abide; and then, supposedly, everything will work out.

Libertarianism, or more specifically, Anarcho-capitalism, stands out. It’s a meta-value system, as discussed above, born from recognizing the insufficiency of straightforward value systems. It simply purports: as it is, so it should be. The market should not be designed fair, and “fair” should not be defined by an ideology; fair is whatever the free market decides. It largely aligns with stoicism, except that one should not just learn to accept the free market but also actively endorse it, a sort of amor fati. Of course, even here, one must gather enough courage to admit that under Libertarianism, people are expected to submit to this maxim. If someone claims it’s within Libertarianism’s scope for others to refuse submission and live out their “-ism”, the counterargument would be that all people and societies throughout history have lived in Libertarianism unknowingly, forever.

 

Lastly, I’d like to propose my own conclusion: there is no other way but to firstly tend to and organize one’s emotions and needs. A healthy entity, analogous to a value system, will naturally result from this approach. One needs to be honest and, for example, recognize and investigate the need for owning a value system: Is it a proudly exhibited character trait? A discreet status symbol? Expected by people whose love you seek? The reasons could be many.